#supervision – Federal Financial Analytics

19 08, 2024

Karen Petrou: What the Fed Must Do to Make Monetary Policy Work

Shane Smith2024-08-19T09:22:53-04:00August 19th, 2024|The Vault|

Later this week, monetary-policy disciples – at least those who agree with the Fed – will gather around the campfire atop Jackson Hole to ponder the question set before them: whether monetary-policy transmission has been effective and, since it’s awesomely obvious it hasn’t, what might be done about that. The plan is clearly to float trial balloons in the clear mountain air to see if the Fed’s thinking about the new plan slated for 2025 is any better than that which lay behind its disastrous 2019 monetary-policy rewrite. Those allowed into these August precincts will have much of value to say this time around much as they sought to do the last time the Fed asked for all their views. Odds are, though, that Jackson Hole will not consider three non-econometric phenomena that lie behind recent policy misfires: economic inequality, NBFI migration, and the strong counter-cyclical impact of Fed supervisory policy.

Why do these matter so much?

First to economic inequality. The last time the Fed rewrote its monetary-policy model, it deigned to consider economic inequality, but promptly dismissed any reasons to worry. There were, though, lots of them.

The 2019 inequality exercise suffered from the same problem as most Fed models: reliance on representative-agent, not heterogeneous data showing distributional disparities. This approach thus reaffirmed blithe convictions that anything that keeps employment high and inflation in check is good for lower-wealth and -income households because it’s good for everyone else. See my book for why that’s grievously wrong and recent …

30 05, 2023

FedFin on: Enforcement Policy

Arezou Rafikian2023-05-30T17:09:49-04:00May 30th, 2023|The Vault|

Following a speech earlier this year by the Acting Comptroller arguing that some banks are “too big to manage” and the furor caused by recent failures, the OCC has significantly revised its enforcement policy. The new framework requires examiners promptly to intervene if any of a bank’s CAMELS scores slips to 3 for unsatisfactory or if the bank is what CFPB Director Chopra would call a “repeat offender” of law, rule, or express supervisory actions or found deficient in practices necessary to ensuring safety and soundness.

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

22 05, 2023

Karen Petrou: How to Ensure That Independent Study of Regulatory Mistakes Leads to Near-Term, Meaningful Redress and Reform

Eliza Allen2023-05-22T11:47:33-04:00May 22nd, 2023|The Vault|

Last week, a moderate Senate Democrat was joined by a Republican in yet another letter demanding an independent investigation of regulatory actions related to recent bank failures. But, as the absence of specifics in any of these letters makes clear, it’s a lot easier to call for independent inquiry than to lay out how to conduct one that might make a meaningful difference. Precedent is not encouraging – for example, Congress created a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission after 2008, but it was an unqualified waste of time and money. Still, we urgently need an independent assessment of what went so wrong combined with another providing near-term, actionable reforms. Having served on one post-crisis national commission that did a bit of good, I recommend separating the forensic inquiry from the one focused on the future, guarding against conflicts without eliminating expertise, and assessing only a few clear questions suitable for practical answers that can be readily accomplished under current law.

The first decision point determines all the rest: whether the independent analysis is to be forensic – who dropped which heavy ball on whose toes – or focused on the future – what we learned and what to do about it. Many of the proposals for an independent commission, including the Congressional letter noted above, want their commission to do both, but none could do so well and asking for this is thus asking for trouble.

A good forensic analysis will reduce the moral hazard enjoyed by federal supervisors long exempt …

28 03, 2023

FedFin on: Senate Banking Demands Supervisory Accountability, Transparency, Reform

Arezou Rafikian2023-04-03T12:47:49-04:00March 28th, 2023|The Vault|

Today’s Senate Banking hearing was extremely well-attended by senators on both sides of the aisle clearly looking first to understand what precipitated recent bank failures, who is to blame, and what should be done next. Republicans argued that current law gives the Fed considerable discretion without the need for statutory change. Although FRB Vice Chairman Barr initially sought to emphasize the need for new rules without blaming old ones, he ultimately admitted that the Fed indeed could and can govern risky banking organizations regardless of size….

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…